[Sca-cooks] sops

tom.vincent at yahoo.com tom.vincent at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 5 13:53:47 PDT 2006


I wasn't bitten and etymology is only important if the definition was static.  Clearly it wasn't and still isn't.  
 
The fact that the different recipes have two different definitions of 'sops' but very similar ingredients...maybe some of the later ones came from some of the earlier ones?
 
It really is okay for a word to have multiple definitions, multiple contexts, a noun at one time, a verb at another.
 
I think it's really educational and interesting to view 8 different recipes showing so many similarities and a few differences from such a broad spectrum in time and distance.
 
This'll blow your mind as my favorite example of extreme word evolution:  In the 17th century, 'maggot' meant a fancy or delight.
 
 
Duriel

 
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 
Tom Vincent
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
US Marines: Murdering toddlers to protect us from Saudi terrorists. 


----- Original Message ----
From: Terry Decker <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net>
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2006 4:06:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] sops


The recipes you have cited are all 14th Century or later and most of them 
are written in Middle English which came into use around 1100.  "Sopp" has 
its origins in Old English (5th to 11th Centuries) and the first known 
reference is, IIRC, in a Saxon Leechbook from about 1000 CE and it refers to 
the act of dipping bread in liquid.  This means that Elaine's usage predates 
the usage you reference by at least 300 years.

Your argument is just the reverse of the reality and you have been bitten 
(as I have been at other times) by failure to check the etymology of a word.

Bear



More information about the Sca-cooks mailing list